Talk:Takbir

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

RfC: Terrorist war cry[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
* Consensus clearly exists that the specific statement is inappropriate for the lead, and that it is poorly sourced. As such it should be removed.
  • No clear consensus exists on the inclusion in the lead of a toned down version of the statement that discusses its use in warfare.
    • The question of whether a milder statement could be included falls into two categories of opinions; There also seems to be a strong argument that including a statement on the use of the Takbir in warfare or extremism is giving undue weight to its perceived use in warfare or extremism. Other editors would support a toned-down version being included in the lede, but only after careful consideration.
Acebulf (talk) 22:43, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should the following text recently added to the lead section in Special:Diff/970457222/970590728 be included in the article?

It is also a islamic war cry for perpetration of communal atrocities against people of other faiths. Also, all over the world, terrorists use this as a war cry during attacks on civilians and military; similar to as in Charlie Hebdo Shooting or 2018 Liège attack where the terrorists used “allahu akbar”[1][2][3][4] as a war cry.

— Newslinger talk 06:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam. — Newslinger talk 06:42, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The proposed text only focusses on modern terrorism, and is not properly sourced: it solely rests on primary sources of isolated events, but not on secondary sources which discuss the phenomenon itself. As it stands, the current way of using sources could also support a statement like "cars of the brand XXX are used by Jihadist terrorists when perpetrating communal atrocities against people of other faiths", with a news source about an attack which happens to mention the car manufacturer. This is the sort of quality you expect when edits are not driven by the intention to improve this encyclopedia, but by socmed campaigns.
That said, good sources about the takbir as a battle cry are easy to find, a Google Scholar search will lead you there[1][2]. But it will also be clear that the use of the takbir as "battle cry" (or its Western perception as such) is not restricted to modern terrorist attacks, but has many historical precedents, including in contexts that do not count as "terrorism", but rather conventional warfare. The section "In Politics and warfare" offers good material about it, and the lead should summarize all aspects of that section, based on acadamic peer-reviewed secondary sources. But certainly, the appropriation of the phrase by modern extremists, and its ensuing perception as such by non-Muslims in public discourse deserve a mention in the lead. –Austronesier (talk) 08:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add Maybe I should have been more clear. The notability of the abuse of the takbir by extremists cannot be separated from existence of the global right-wing bigot trope that Allahu akbar is "the Terrorist war cry". Peaceful Muslims are harassed, profiled or unduly come under suspicion just for uttering the takbir, the tahmid or just in sha'a llah in public,[5] and that is notable, too. –Austronesier (talk) 18:39, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I mostly agree with the above comment, but disagree regarding the idea that the phrase's appropriation by modern extremists deserves mentioning in the lede. It is used "to express resolute determination" which includes its used as a battle cry (as pointed out in Takbir#In Politics and warfare), regardless of whether the violence is terrorist/non-terrorist/legitimate/illegitimate etc. Usually, this phrase would be used by religious Muslims in all activities involving violence, regardless of whether they are offensive or self-defence. It looks like the phrase's use in extremist violence makes up for a very small portion of its overall use; therefore, I believe mentioning this in the lede gives significant undue weight. In the lede, just mention that it also gets commonly used as a battle cry, don't see any reason to mention anything further. — AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 13:09, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Definitely not. Describing the takbir as an 'Islamic war cry', where its use is limited to extremist groups who profess to follow a very narrow interpretation of the religion, is inappropriate. This paragraph also seems to violate WP:NPOV in its prose. Sustenance in Sonder - IseDaByThatEditsTheBoat 17:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose It puts way too much weight on usage in extremism, compared to the literally every-day usage among almost 2 billion people. The wording is also very disingenuous, suggesting some normalisation of atrocities in Islamic terminology. One could write something very brief, such as "e.g. as a battle cry" after "used ... to express resolute determination or defiance". One could also add that in the Western world it is nowadays commonly associated with that usage, but only if a proper source is given (some linguistic/cultural commentary, not a news article) and the context is extended to emphasise the everyday usage. Tokenzero (talk) 21:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While I strongly agree with the statement and it's necessity to be included the lede to maintain WP:NPOV and Due, the sources seems to be a bit lacking. I don't think the solution is to remove it completely, but to let be so that other editors can add to it, as this does not violate BLP. - BhaskaraPattelar (talk) 09:52, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – there's so much wrong here, I don't know where to begin. For starters: the words war cry are used three times in two sentences in something proposed for the lead, thus of major importance to the article. All right then, so how many times do the four references supplied contain the expression, war cry ? One moment while I tally them all up... one second... almost done... Okay, done; I'm back: the total number of times that the expression war cry is used in all four of those references is: zero. What the editor has done here, is to take some accounts about terrorist attacks, and provide his own spin on what a shouted phrase means, supported by none of the sources. It's hard to take seriously an Rfc calling for a triple injection of a contentious characterization into the lead, supported by exactly nothing. Mathglot (talk) 11:49, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As this New York Times article Allahu Akbar’: An Everyday Phrase, Tarnished by Attacks states it needs to be mentioned thin some form that is used by Muslim militants.Just a few references below there are several other references.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:09, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[5][6][7][8][9][reply]
  • Comment Per WP:LEAD, the "In Politics and warfare" text should be noticable in the lead, currently it is not. Also, it seems logical that "In Politics and warfare" should be part of "Usage" in the article structure, not on the same "level." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:05, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Per Austronesier and Gråbergs, include not just the instance of modern terrorism but all instances of its usage in the lead. That being said, not including its usage as a war cry in the lead (as it is currently) is missing out on giving WP:DUE weight to the MOS:LEAD. SerChevalerie (talk) 13:52, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, but . . . The suggested version goes too far. However, per MOS:LEAD, the "Politics and Warfare" section of the article should appear in the lead. Would support a toned-down version. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:24, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the proposed wording is quite inappropriate for this article and so oppose for now. I appreciate Newslinger's request for alternative wording and let me come up some and we can then discuss that wording. The article's lead should reflect the rest of the article.VR talk 14:29, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly support Leaders of the world agree that radical Islamic terrorism is the biggest threat to humanity today. Everyday people should become aware of this threat. The biggest war cry for terrorists in training camps in Pakistan is "Allahu Akbar", which means "There is no one greater than Allah." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahtirth94 (talk • contribs) 13:56, 15 August 2020 (UTC) — Shahtirth94 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Strongest possible oppose firstly, in WP terms this is interpretation of primary sources - which as Mathglot points out, isn't even very accurate and goes way beyond those handful of sources. Going beyond that, having edited many of these terrorist incident articles, what is much more commonly sourced than "the perp said 'Allahu Akbar'", is that "an unnamed witness or two CLAIMS they shouted it", this has happened even in incidents like 2016 Munich shooting - where the perp turned out to be a far-right, Christian convert, and 2016 Nice truck attack, where it has pretty much proven that background noise of truck and victims would have made it quite impossible for anyone to hear anything said by the perp. I don't doubt that there may have been incidents where the takbir was used by perps, but what is certainly true is that the claim, often by a small number of anon witnesses, that the expression was used during an attack has become a journalistic cliche, often dubiously sourced. As the NBC source says "The phrase “Allahu akbar” has become almost synonymous with terrorism in American popular culture" that is probably at least as reliably sourced as its actual use in attacks. Pincrete (talk) 15:22, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Pincrete: If there are sources that cover the phenomenon of people falsely hearing Allahu Akbar that might be interesting to cover in this article. Do you know of any sociologists, psychologists who might have written about this?VR talk 15:36, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No I don't. Except with the Munich attack (where early media assumptions about the perp were very wrong), other claims - including many in the sources here - tend to be dubious, rather than consciously dishonest. "An unnamed witness says", "an unnamed police officer says that unnamed witnesses heard" … … . It's WP:OR on my part of course, but in all the confusion, noise and panic of a violent incident, people who don't know a word of Arabic are suddenly clear about what was shouted? I have heard interview tapes in which the interviewer is clearly leading fairly peripheral witnesses as to whether "Allahu Akbar" was what they had heard shouted. That this was said several times in the Charlie Hebdo incident is better sourced, and possibly on other occasions, "she said he left, shouting, “Allahu akbar, allahu akbar”,… … "She said they yelled “allahu akbar” or “God is great” before running out of the office", but neither of these uses could possibly be described, and is not described, as 'a war cry' and the characterisation of it thus is mainly a media cliche in my experience. If terrorist use is covered at all, it should not be as proposed here IMO. Pincrete (talk) 16:14, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The few sources about this usage focused on the term (as opposed to ones that mention it in passing) specifically note that it is overstated and that that usage does not have any special meaning outside of its generally common use as a battle cry. --Aquillion (talk) 00:19, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

  1. ^ "The Globe in Paris: Police identify three suspects - The Globe and Mail". web.archive.org. 2015-01-10. Retrieved 2020-08-01.
  2. ^ "Journalist Sigolene Vinson says she was spared by gunmen because of her gender". NewsComAu. 2015-01-09. Retrieved 2020-08-01.
  3. ^ "Gunman kills three in Belgium attack". BBC News. 2018-05-29. Retrieved 2020-08-01.
  4. ^ "The Latest: Islamic State group claims deadly Belgium attack". AP NEWS. 2018-05-30. Retrieved 2020-08-01.
  5. ^ a b "Allahu Akbar': An Everyday Phrase, Tarnished by Attacks". New York Times. 2 November 2017. Retrieved 6 August 2020.
  6. ^ "'Allahu Akbar' cry at terror drill was scripted, police admit". Frances Perraudin. The Guardian. 11 May 2016. Retrieved 6 August 2020.
  7. ^ "For Some, 'Allahu Akbar' Means Terrorism; Here's What It Means to Muslims". Katie Warren. NBC. 1 November 2017. Retrieved 6 August 2020.
  8. ^ "Frenchman stabbed by couple shouting 'Allahu Akbar'". BBC. 1 July 2016. Retrieved 6 August 2020.
  9. ^ "Attacker yells 'Allahu Akbar,' stabs five in Paris before police take him down". Steve Almasy and Eva Tapiero. CNN. 13 May 2018. Retrieved 6 August 2020.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

How can jai shree Ram is war cry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jai_Shri_Ram and Allah hu akbar not terrorist war cry RamTripathi33 (talk) 18:36, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

brother they won't answer you because they are hypocrites. 2402:8100:39EC:641D:D167:2D63:D28F:8182 (talk) 16:11, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 2023[edit]

In order to circumvent the RfC result about not having the term "war cry" in the lead, an edit warrior who has a tendency to cast aspersions, has added the word "battle" to the lead and removed relevant and NPOV content without a valid reason, or even an explanation. M.Bitton (talk) 17:12, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging those who edited the article lately (minus the socks) @Rizzle685, DeCausa, Austronesier, ScottishFinnishRadish, Bremps, and Khiikiat: your input on this would be highly appreciated. Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 17:27, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also find the changes unproductive, not least in the strange ordering and the emphasis on halal slaughter first and foremost, especially when this is mere coincidental usage as part of wider prayer. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:30, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the RFC is pretty clear on what the lede should not include. Furthermore, we should be careful to not display English-language bias; this phrase has wider significance to Muslims but a lot of English sources have no reason to cover it except for in the context of radical Islamic terrorism. Bremps... 17:37, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing is most relevant here to establish due weight. We go by reliable sources about the topic and what these sources consider worth mentioning about it, and not sources about something else that happen to mention the topic. So the part about "the halal slaughter of animals" is inadequately sourced. The "battle" source meets this criterion. The entry in the Historical Dictionary of Islam reads in full: ALLAHU AKBAR. “God is most great.” A formula in Islam, called the takbir, occurring in ritual prayers, as a call to prayer, or as a battle cry during war.
But this is just one source. To establish due weight, we need more than just one source that includes the use of the Takbīr as battle cry as a significant aspect of its usage.
In any case, the lede summarizes the article. Whenever the lede is heavily edited without matching the rest of the article, something is wrong. I recommend to build the article from bottom-up, based on sources that primarily cover the topic. –Austronesier (talk) 17:59, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Note: I don't think there's any reason to continue this discussion now that the disruptive editor has been indeffed as yet another sock (I am as shocked as you probably are). Many thanks to all of you. M.Bitton (talk) 19:38, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jai Shree Ram vs this article[edit]

It's laughable how biased Wikipedia is. While the 'Jai Shree Ram' page includes every possible event associated with the slogan, especially instances of violence, with repeated mentions in the lead and throughout the article, this article does a great job of concealing the extensive use by Islamic extremists when they commit acts of violence. Great job - I sincerely admire the effort of all Wikipedians. Rackaballa (talk) 04:57, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERCONTENT and false equivalence for why people may not find this kind of argument convincing.
That said, it is reasonable to ask whether the use of the Takbir by extremists or for celebrating acts of violence is given enough room in the present version of the article (or whether, in the corresponding section, the currently quoted view of Khaled A. Beydoun is representative of "all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic", as required by Wikipedia's Neutral point of view policy). But this kind of question can only be answered by examining what other reliable sources have published about this topic, not by comparisons with an entirely different slogan from an entirely different religion.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 02:34, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would love to hear from you why you think comparing the two is false equivalency. How are the two slogans any different? Rackaballa (talk) 04:27, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
’’’Jai Shree Ram’’’
* The article includes a dedicated section on the chant's use in communal violence. This section provides a detailed overview of the history of the chant's use in violence, as well as specific examples of incidents in which the chant has been used.
* The article discusses the various reasons why the chant has been used in violence. These reasons include the chant's association with Hindu nationalism, its use as a rallying cry for Hindu mobs, and its use to intimidate and threaten Muslims.
* The article acknowledges that the use of the chant in violence is a controversial issue. The article presents a balanced view of the different perspectives on this issue, and does not take a clear stance on whether or not the chant is inherently violent.
‘’’Takbir’’’
* The article only mentions the chant's use in terrorism in passing. The article does not provide any specific examples of incidents in which the chant has been used in terrorism.
* The article does not discuss the reasons why the chant has been used in terrorism.
* The article does not acknowledge that the use of the chant in terrorism is a controversial issue.
In addition to these differences in content, the two articles also differ in their tone. The article on Jai Shree Ram is more negative in tone.
Overall, the two Wikipedia articles differ significantly in their coverage of the use of their respective chants in violent situations. Rackaballa (talk) 04:37, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let me try to explain it in more detail.
To quote from false equivalence: This fallacy is committed when one shared trait between two subjects is assumed to show equivalence, especially in order of magnitude, when equivalence is not necessarily the logical result.
You appear to argue that because both are religious slogans that have been used in violent acts (shared trait), that aspect must be given equal weight in both articles (assume equivalence). In contrast, Wikipedia's aforementioned Neutral Point of View policy requires that articles fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources (my bolding).
You may be right that the two Wikipedia articles differ significantly in their coverage of the use of their respective chants in violent situations. But your mistake is to automatically assume that this is because of bias on Wikipedia's side, rather than considering the possibility that this is because reliable sources have given this aspect different weight in the coverage of each topic (which, in turn, could well be because the underlying facts summarized by these sources are different).
Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:17, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

‎Usage by [both] extremists [pural] and terrorists [pural][edit]

Discussion with a sock
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.



The article has a paragraph >> "===‎Usage by [both] extremists [pural] and terrorists [pural]==="

Within this para : There is ONE cited example of this usage. With the Wikilink previously removed. The sentence is also qualified > "sometimes" and it provides no details - just a citation to a voluminous document.

However there are FOUR cited detailed rebuttals of this usage.

I have added - one citation with -further examples, with my edit explanations - which have been immediately reverted with no explanation, or reverted with completely unconvincing explanations : "already sourced" - "not really a NPOV source" - "not needed" - "stop edit warring".

There a consensus on this page to not include this usage in the Lead. I accept that.

Please provide valid reasons for rejecting this inclusion.

Airport167 (talk) 02:43, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, all you did is add a citation (link to a book) to a statement that is already sourced. What exactly is that supposed to achieve (given that the statement in question is not challenged)? M.Bitton (talk) 11:49, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the words of our enemies by Jed Babbin, covers the subject of Allah Akbar used by terrorists, worldwide on pages 27, 104, 107, 109, 120, 123 & 124.
There are countless examples of Allah Akbar ‎used worldwide by [both] extremists [pural] and terrorists [pural].
Rather than being a Cinematic-Trope it is now Cinematic-Imersive with terrorists filming, and live streaming, their atrocities using GoPro cameras, while shouting Allah Akbar.
Airport167 (talk) 20:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources for usage by extremists and terrorists[edit]

I added two additional sources[1][2] for usage by extremists and terrorists in unrelated events in order to back the claim. M.Bitton reverted my changes. It's not uncommon to have multiple sources and I don't see why this case should different. dindia (talk) 16:39, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, it's already sourced and there is no need for others (especially, second rate recent ones). It's also amply clear that your edits (since October 2023) serve no other purpose than to push a POV regarding the Palestine-Israel conflict, specifically, the Hamas attack (when your edit warring started). M.Bitton (talk) 16:49, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Oren Liebermann. "Bodycam video shows early moments of Hamas massacre in Israel and tunnels under Gaza". CNN.
  2. ^ Ingrid Melander and Emmanuel Jarry. "One killed in Paris knife attack by man shouting 'Allahu akbar'". Reuters.

The section, 'Usage by extremists and terrorists' as it stands, is not balanced[edit]

Responding to the (14 March 2024), puerile comment by @M.Bitton: > "another day, another SPA. Please read the talk page and find something actually useful to add to the article".

The above 'Talk Page' discussion concludes that, "Consensus clearly exists that the specific statement is inappropriate for the lead". Not that, 'specific statements' are inappropriate in the body of the article.

The article editing includes (random-editor-opinion) statements such as "random occurrences must not be quoted". The article then proceeds to quote a random occurrence [cite 27] leading to an Allah Akbar example buried within a 19,000 word report. ( and what is so special about this particular random occurrence? ), followed by 4 detailed POV rebuttals of, the (very subject of the section) 'usage by extremists and terrorists'.

The entire section, paradoxically-headed, 'Usage by extremists and terrorists', lacks encyclopaedic balance.

It is proposed that the following RS, scholarly inclusion, be added.

The term Allah Akbar is often misunderstood by Western media.[1]

DublinSunrise5 (talk) 04:23, 16 March 2024 (UTC) DublinSunrise5 (talk) 04:23, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "'Allahu Akbar' – 'Allah Is The Greatest' – A Jihadi Battle Cry". Middle East Media Research Institute. 2023-01-11. Retrieved 2024-03-13. The term Allahu akbar embodies the fight for the supremacy of Islam, Allah, and the true believers: past, present, and future; actual and symbolic; military, cultural, or by means of forces of nature controlled and directed by Allah. It is the battle cry and the anthem of this fight for supremacy.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Takbir&oldid=1219272889"